Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 24, 2005 4:28am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

To add what's already been said: Anything you place in lossless .shn or .flac format here should already be from a lossless file source. Anything less is misleading to people expecting archival-quality files, and unfortunately could lead to bad feelings.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-05-24 11:28:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Samizdat Date: May 24, 2005 1:24am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

Let's remember that sound is a very subjective thing. For instance: the cat who gets the patch cord, perfectly engineered and produced recording might have a technically cleaner (albeit sterile) sound than the one standing a quarter of a mile away from the speakers with a cheap cassette recorder. As to whether the adulterated sound of the band alone, or the captured sounds of both band and crowd are "purer" or "better," is more matter of opinion and taste than theory.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 24, 2005 4:26am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

Agreed, but that's a separate issue from turning say, .wma or .mp3 files into .flac.